Reviews

I've just seen this glorious epic at a Kiev cinema and am amazed at how Russian cinema can release such a superb fantasy film. This is an adaptation of the first Volkodav fantasy novel by Maria Semyonova that draws on a wide range of Slavic mythology.

Alexander Bukharov is well cast as the hero, the "wolfhound" fighting the evil "wolf", with a strong supporting cast that relies on impact more than the hairstyles, tooth-whitener and revealing loincloths of Hollywood. This is not a sentimental film, but accepts the violence and closeness-to-nature of tribal life, reminiscent of the Dark Ages. The film's stark, realistic feel reminded me of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, that emotionally draws many parallels.

Bukharov would be an ideal King Arthur or King Alfred - it's a pity that his nationality will probably write off any Hollywood offers. The obvious comparison is to Lord of the Rings, but the movie manages to keep originality in many plot strands, effects and characterization's.

Its landscapes are relatively muted, having been filmed in Slovakia rather than New Zealand, but its effects and monsters are winners over Hollywood, by maintaining suspense and keeping many nasties just out of vision. By having the main effects based on primal forces of nature, rather than a new-generation iteration of Predator or Alien, it avoids the typical clichés that most fantasy films suffer from.

I hope this gets a wide release in Europe and the USA - it certainly deserves it.

This looked like $200 million spent on excellent special effects and 35 cents spent on a sad screenplay by a five-year-old. A terrible waste of so much talent but indicative of what drives Hollywood. It also very much reflects the obsession of Hollywood producers with relationships between divorced parents, young children and teenagers at the expense of other genres. HG Wells wrote an enduring sci-fi story that was exciting, with a plot, structure and battles, leading to a war and its conclusion. Spielberg treated us to psychotherapy angst and a series of dramatic explosions and scenes of destruction. If Wells had written the original in such a manner, it would have been forgotten decades ago.

I had never heard of Ademir Kenovic before this movie, but I was stunned by his abilities. It's possible to pause this fim in hundreds of places to see a masterwork painting in the framing, composition and scenery.

The credits list a battalion of those involved in the scenery, costumes and technical support needed for such a costume drama and no wonder. My main criticism is that, perhaps for reasons of the actors' vanity, frequently the characters did not wear hats or headgear, as they would have done in the 15th century and also often appeared casually dressed in what would have been a very formal society.

The story line is sufficiently complex to hold the attention without being overly convoluted, dealing essentially with the basics of human relationships and fate. The dialogue is sharp and the actors all did a good job.

Very reminiscent of BBC historical drama at its best, with the added bonus of such a talented Bosnian director.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching such an alternative portrayal of Arthur, having been fed Victorian Romanticism since as far back as I can remember, as in many ways realised in the Disney adaptation.

Interesting that Arthur and his his knights were wholly or partially Sarmatian, from a country today known as the Ukraine. Although Ioan Gruffudd Lancelot was rather more convincing than Tony Curtis's Taras Bulba, another historic Ukrainian. Giving "Arthur's Sarmatian Knights" as they're referred to in the film, varied and different British regional accents was an interesting notion, which worked.

The weak point was Clive Owen's Arthur - not strong enough in terms of charisma. Indeed, Gruffudd would have been a better choice for Arthur. Guinevere was superbly portrayed and far more interesting as a Pictish warrior.

All in all, a valiant attempt on the quest to seek truth in history.